Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.os.msdos.programmer > #1194 > unrolled thread

Building a multiboot system!

Back to article view | Back to comp.os.msdos.programmer

Contents

  Building a multiboot system! Patrick Rockwell <prockwell@thegrid.net> - 2013-12-18 20:25 -0800
    Re: Building a multiboot system! JJ <duh@nah.meh> - 2013-12-19 13:01 +0700
      Re: Building a multiboot system! Patrick Rockwell <prockwell@thegrid.net> - 2013-12-19 17:37 -0800
        Re: Building a multiboot system! "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnohavenotit.cnm> - 2013-12-20 02:16 -0500
          Re: Building a multiboot system! "Stanley Daniel de Liver" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2013-12-20 11:30 +0000
            Re: Building a multiboot system! dg1261 <dgREMOVE-THIS1261@cs.com> - 2013-12-21 00:59 +0000
              Re: Building a multiboot system! "James Harris" <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2013-12-21 12:18 +0000
                Re: Building a multiboot system! "Stanley Daniel de Liver" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2013-12-21 15:11 +0000
                Re: Building a multiboot system! "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnohavenotit.cnm> - 2013-12-21 17:35 -0500
                  Re: Building a multiboot system! "James Harris" <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2013-12-21 23:33 +0000
              Re: Building a multiboot system! "Stanley Daniel de Liver" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2013-12-21 14:47 +0000
          Re: Building a multiboot system! Ross Ridge <rridge@csclub.uwaterloo.ca> - 2013-12-22 15:31 -0500
    Re: Building a multiboot system! dg1261 <dgREMOVE-THIS1261@cs.com> - 2013-12-19 11:29 +0000
      Re: Building a multiboot system! Harry Potter <rose.joseph12@yahoo.com> - 2013-12-19 08:10 -0800
        Re: Building a multiboot system! Patrick Rockwell <prockwell@thegrid.net> - 2013-12-19 13:37 -0800
        Re: Building a multiboot system! dg1261 <dgREMOVE-THIS1261@cs.com> - 2013-12-20 06:22 +0000
          Re: Building a multiboot system! "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnohavenotit.cnm> - 2013-12-20 02:16 -0500
            Re: Building a multiboot system! "Stanley Daniel de Liver" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2013-12-20 11:15 +0000
            Re: Building a multiboot system! dg1261 <dgREMOVE-THIS1261@cs.com> - 2013-12-21 00:56 +0000
              Re: Building a multiboot system! "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnohavenotit.cnm> - 2013-12-21 01:51 -0500
                Re: Building a multiboot system! dg1261 <dgREMOVE-THIS1261@cs.com> - 2013-12-21 08:54 +0000
                  Re: Building a multiboot system! "James Harris" <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2013-12-21 12:26 +0000
                Re: Building a multiboot system! Steph <pas.de.mail@serveur.invalid> - 2013-12-21 15:11 +0000
      Re: Building a multiboot system! Patrick Rockwell <prockwell@thegrid.net> - 2014-02-07 14:15 -0800
        Re: Building a multiboot system! dg1261 <dgREMOVE-THIS1261@cs.com> - 2014-02-08 09:41 +0000
    Re: Building a multiboot system! miepbart@gmail.com - 2014-08-17 00:02 -0700

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#1194 — Building a multiboot system!

I'm planning to have a multi boot computer with as many operating systems as I can find. I'd like Dos 6.22
to be one of them. My old PC is in a closet and I did put an earlier version of system commander on it.

I did call a local computer store and they said that they
Could custom build a system for me and port all my dos stuff onto the new computer.

One problem that I have is that system commander is
no longer made or supported and so, sooner or later
there will be a new OS that the latest version can't handle. There are other alternatives such as lilo or grub though.

I was thinking of using grub. Now here is my dilemma.
I've heard that you can download usb drivers for dos.!
Does grub have the ability to let you see the dos partition from whatever windows you've booted? I ask
this because I heard that the latest version of system commander wouldn't even work unless you hid the OS's from each other. Does anyone know? I don't think
I can just download it into my dos partition because
I don't think there are any serial port modems anymore.  Are there any serial to usb cables?

If you have an answer or knowledge about multiboot
alternatives to system commander, please reply, and
thanks in advance. 

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1196

On Wed, 18 Dec 2013 20:25:23 -0800 (PST), Patrick Rockwell wrote:
> One problem that I have is that system commander is no longer made or
> supported and so, sooner or later there will be a new OS that the latest
> version can't handle. There are other alternatives such as lilo or grub
> though.

I used to use Vcom's System Commander too, but it has become too fixed and
limited in comparison with GRUB.

> I was thinking of using grub. Now here is my dilemma.
> I've heard that you can download usb drivers for dos.!

Yes, there are a view USB storage drivers for DOS. But they won't be needed
if you simply want to boot to a USB drive, and your BIOS already support USB
storage feature as a setting (most already have).

> Does grub have the ability to let you see the dos partition from
> whatever windows you've booted?

That's entirely up to your boot configuration and the booted OS. There
shouldn't be any problem detecting and accessing other non-hidden
partitions.

> I ask this because I heard that the latest version of system commander
> wouldn't even work unless you hid the OS's from each other. Does anyone
> know?

I never have this problem. I never have to hide other partitions in order
for the chosen OS to boot. GRUB doesn't have this problem too.

> I don't think I can just download it into my dos partition because I don't
> think there are any serial port modems anymore.  Are there any serial to
> usb cables?

If you're planning to use a serial port modem under DOS, and your PC doesn't
have any serial port, that's gonna be difficult. There are USB-based serial
port cable, but it won't work under pure DOS. Your only choice to use a
serial port is from Windows 9x or linux (with USB support).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1201

On Wednesday, December 18, 2013 10:01:47 PM UTC-8, JJ wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Dec 2013 20:25:23 -0800 (PST), Patrick Rockwell wrote:
> 
> > One problem that I have is that system commander is no longer made or
> 
> > supported and so, sooner or later there will be a new OS that the latest
> 
> > version can't handle. There are other alternatives such as lilo or grub
> 
> > though.
> 
> 
> 
> I used to use Vcom's System Commander too, but it has become too fixed and
> 
> limited in comparison with GRUB.
> 
> 
> 
> > I was thinking of using grub. Now here is my dilemma.
> 
> > I've heard that you can download usb drivers for dos.!
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, there are a view USB storage drivers for DOS. But they won't be needed
> 
> if you simply want to boot to a USB drive, and your BIOS already support USB
> 
> storage feature as a setting (most already have).
> 
Ahh, so if I have that kind of BIOS, could dos 6.22
use all usb peripherals? If not, will grub allow my
Windows to copy downloaded files to my dos partition?

> 
> 
> > Does grub have the ability to let you see the dos partition from
> 
> > whatever windows you've booted?
> 
> 
> 
> That's entirely up to your boot configuration and the booted OS. There
> 
> shouldn't be any problem detecting and accessing other non-hidden
> 
> partitions.
> 
> 
> 
> > I ask this because I heard that the latest version of system commander
> 
> > wouldn't even work unless you hid the OS's from each other. Does anyone
> 
> > know?
> 
> 
> 
> I never have this problem. I never have to hide other partitions in order
> 
> for the chosen OS to boot. GRUB doesn't have this problem too.
> 
> Also, my old system has 3 partitions, C:, D:, and E:. All
Dos formatted with dos ostensibly with C: as the boot partition.
Can I keep those and give my other OS's extra partitions for extra storage?
> 
> > I don't think I can just download it into my dos partition because I don't
> 
> > think there are any serial port modems anymore.  Are there any serial to
> 
> > usb cables?
> 
> 
> 
> If you're planning to use a serial port modem under DOS, and your PC doesn't
> 
> have any serial port, that's gonna be difficult. There are USB-based serial
> 
> port cable, but it won't work under pure DOS. Your only choice to use a
> 
> serial port is from Windows 9x or linux (with USB support).

If I can avoid using a serial modem, I will. Thanks for the great info!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1205

On Thu, 19 Dec 2013 20:37:50 -0500, Patrick Rockwell  
<prockwell@thegrid.net> wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 18, 2013 10:01:47 PM UTC-8, JJ wrote:
>> On Wed, 18 Dec 2013 20:25:23 -0800 (PST), Patrick Rockwell wrote:

>> Yes, there are a view USB storage drivers for DOS. But they won't
>> be needed if you simply want to boot to a USB drive, and your BIOS
>> already support USB storage feature as a setting [...].
>>
> Ahh, so if I have that kind of BIOS, could dos 6.22
> use all usb peripherals? If not, will grub allow my
> Windows to copy downloaded files to my dos partition?

Modern BIOSes which support the BIOS Boot Spec. (BBS) will
let you *boot* a USB device.  It's emulated as an IDE device
by the BIOS.  DOS, however, will not "see" the other non-boot
USB devices without DOS USB drivers.  DOS will only see the
boot USB device because the BIOS is emulating it.  Also,
Windows 98/SE will *not* boot from a USB device.  Win98/SE
resets the USB controllers during startup of Windows which
causes a boot failure, i.e., no external USB install.  In fact,
I've failures with booting Linux from external USB devices too.

I would think the GRUB would allow you to boot DOS, and IIRC, that's
true.  But, I can't confirm since I've not used it for that.  It used
to be that Linux required the first partition on a hard disk to be a
swap partition.  That might interfere with booting DOS.  Some OSes won't
boot if the boot code isn't in the lower tracks of the disk.  IIRC,
DOS is one of those.

My recommendation if you want multiple systems on the same computer
is to install them on separate internal hard drives (or SSDs), then use
the BBS boot menu (usually F11 or somesuch...), to select a different
boot device at startup.  I would avoid USB, except to use it as a
replacement for a DOS floppy.


Rod Pemberton

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1207

On Fri, 20 Dec 2013 07:16:43 -0000, Rod Pemberton  
<dont_use_email@xnohavenotit.cnm> wrote:

> On Thu, 19 Dec 2013 20:37:50 -0500, Patrick Rockwell  
> <prockwell@thegrid.net> wrote:
>> On Wednesday, December 18, 2013 10:01:47 PM UTC-8, JJ wrote:
>>> On Wed, 18 Dec 2013 20:25:23 -0800 (PST), Patrick Rockwell wrote:
>
>>> Yes, there are a view USB storage drivers for DOS. But they won't
>>> be needed if you simply want to boot to a USB drive, and your BIOS
>>> already support USB storage feature as a setting [...].
>>>
>> Ahh, so if I have that kind of BIOS, could dos 6.22
>> use all usb peripherals? If not, will grub allow my
>> Windows to copy downloaded files to my dos partition?
>
> Modern BIOSes which support the BIOS Boot Spec. (BBS) will
> let you *boot* a USB device.  It's emulated as an IDE device
> by the BIOS.  DOS, however, will not "see" the other non-boot
> USB devices without DOS USB drivers.  DOS will only see the
> boot USB device because the BIOS is emulating it.  Also,
> Windows 98/SE will *not* boot from a USB device.  Win98/SE
> resets the USB controllers during startup of Windows which
> causes a boot failure, i.e., no external USB install.  In fact,
> I've failures with booting Linux from external USB devices too.
>
> I would think the GRUB would allow you to boot DOS, and IIRC, that's
> true.  But, I can't confirm since I've not used it for that.  It used

Yes it can, I have it here.

> to be that Linux required the first partition on a hard disk to be a
No longer required.
> swap partition.  That might interfere with booting DOS.  Some OSes won't
> boot if the boot code isn't in the lower tracks of the disk.  IIRC,
> DOS is one of those.
yes, IO.SYS needs to be in the 1st 2G. I think DOS requires a C drive, but  
I may be wrong.
(It doesn't have to be the 1st partition, but its probably best that way)

>
> My recommendation if you want multiple systems on the same computer
> is to install them on separate internal hard drives (or SSDs), then use

It's OK with partitioning

My min spec would be:
2G DOS/W98 (FAT16), 6G? DataDrive (FAT32), 4G XP (FAT32) 2G small linux  
EXT2 (xPUD, Tinycore, Puppy), 4G Mint or Ubuntu, whichever I'm playing  
with, then an ext3 swap

(obviously you can allocate more to the v. partitions if available, but 2G  
is the max for DOS)
I put grub on the small linux ptn. (To edit the menu.lst, I need to boot  
to a linux, but the small ones are pretty fast)

> the BBS boot menu (usually F11 or somesuch...), to select a different
> boot device at startup.  I would avoid USB, except to use it as a
> replacement for a DOS floppy.

Grub 1.x is one I've found OK (I didn't get on with Guub2), but I've not  
tried a lot of bootmanagers.

>
> Rod Pemberton


-- 
It's a money /life balance.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1209

"Stanley Daniel de Liver" <admin@127.0.0.1> wrote in
news:op.w8d19jz0o4et73@dell3100: 

> On Fri, 20 Dec 2013 07:16:43 -0000, Rod Pemberton wrote:
> 
>> Some OSes won't boot if the boot code isn't in the lower tracks of
>> the disk. IIRC, DOS is one of those.
> 
> yes, IO.SYS needs to be in the 1st 2G. I think DOS requires a C drive,
> but I may be wrong. (It doesn't have to be the 1st partition, but its
> probably best that way) 
> 

Stanley's right.  DOS doesn't need to be the first partition, but because 
it uses CHS addressing there are restrictions on where it can be placed 
on the disk, so it's best to keep it close to the front.

Remember, there is no such thing as a "C" drive until some OS boots.  
When DOS boots it by design will designate "C" to be the active partition 
on the first hard disk.  So DOS doesn't have to be the first partition on 
the disk, it just needs to be the active one.  That's one of the jobs of 
boot managers--they change, on the fly, which partition is active in the 
partition table.

Regardless of whether it's first or not, if you have multiple primary FAT 
partitions you need to be careful.  There was a bug in DOS that could 
cause data corruption if multiple primary partitions were visible on the 
same disk.  It wasn't a problem if other partitions were logical (i.e., 
non-primary), weren't visible (i.e., not FAT), or were on secondary hard 
disks, it was only if they were primaries and on the same disk.

If you don't need direct access to hardware ports on the computer, 
another alternative to multibooting is virtualization (VirtualPC, 
VirtualBox, VMWare, et al).  My multiboot system has one DOS partition 
for DOS tasks that do need direct hardware access, but the rest of my DOS 
"systems" are virtual machines.  FWIW, I also run Win98 and Win2000 in 
VMs.  It wouldn't be possible to multiboot them because my hardware is 
too modern to have 98/2000 drivers, but VMs typically emulate older 
hardware so they work fine there.  (See www.goodells.net/virtualpc for 
more.)

Dan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1212

"dg1261" <dgREMOVE-THIS1261@cs.com> wrote in message 
news:XnsA29CACEF5F2A0dgREMOVETHIS1261csco@78.46.70.116...

...

> Stanley's right.  DOS doesn't need to be the first partition, but because
> it uses CHS addressing there are restrictions on where it can be placed
> on the disk, so it's best to keep it close to the front.

Another point to the OP: If setting up a machine which can boot to many 
partitions it can become immensely frustrating if there is no way to pass 
data between them. So it can be a good idea to have at least one large 
partition near the beginning of the drive that all OSes can access.

...

> If you don't need direct access to hardware ports on the computer,
> another alternative to multibooting is virtualization (VirtualPC,
> VirtualBox, VMWare, et al).

Good advice, IMHO. Mutliboot may sound fun but it can quickly become 
annoying if there is a need to switch OSes too often.

James

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1216

On Sat, 21 Dec 2013 12:18:35 -0000, James Harris  
<james.harris.1@gmail.com> wrote:

> "dg1261" <dgREMOVE-THIS1261@cs.com> wrote in message
> news:XnsA29CACEF5F2A0dgREMOVETHIS1261csco@78.46.70.116...
>
> ...
>
>> Stanley's right.  DOS doesn't need to be the first partition, but  
>> because
>> it uses CHS addressing there are restrictions on where it can be placed
>> on the disk, so it's best to keep it close to the front.
>
> Another point to the OP: If setting up a machine which can boot to many
> partitions it can become immensely frustrating if there is no way to pass
> data between them. So it can be a good idea to have at least one large
> partition near the beginning of the drive that all OSes can access.
>
That's my Data Drive

> ...
>
>> If you don't need direct access to hardware ports on the computer,
>> another alternative to multibooting is virtualization (VirtualPC,
>> VirtualBox, VMWare, et al).
>
> Good advice, IMHO. Mutliboot may sound fun but it can quickly become
> annoying if there is a need to switch OSes too often.
>
> James
>
>


-- 
It's a money /life balance.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1217

On Sat, 21 Dec 2013 07:18:35 -0500, James Harris  
<james.harris.1@gmail.com> wrote:

> Another point to the OP: If setting up a machine which can boot to many
> partitions it can become immensely frustrating if there is no way to pass
> data between them. So it can be a good idea to have at least one large
> partition near the beginning of the drive that all OSes can access.
>

Oh, that's easy...

Two simple solutions:

1) Linux supports multiple filesystem types.  Boot Linux, mount one
partition, mount the other, and copy files between them, unmount.

2) Partition and format a USB stick with one of the "standard"
filesystem formats supported by OSes and media devices: FAT16,
FAT32, or NTFS.  NTFS isn't as widely supported.  Linux and Windows
should support all three.  DOS will also work for FAT16 or FAT32.
TVs and DVRs should support both FATs and sometimes NTFS.


Rod Pemberton

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1218

"Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnohavenotit.cnm> wrote in message 
news:op.w8gro4hx5zc71u@localhost...
> On Sat, 21 Dec 2013 07:18:35 -0500, James Harris 
> <james.harris.1@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Another point to the OP: If setting up a machine which can boot to many
>> partitions it can become immensely frustrating if there is no way to pass
>> data between them. So it can be a good idea to have at least one large
>> partition near the beginning of the drive that all OSes can access.
>>
>
> Oh, that's easy...

Sure. It's just something that's a good idea to include when partitioning. 
Awkward to add later.

It would depend on requirements but FAT16 is probably best in most cases. I 
cannot think of anything else which is as widely supported.

James

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1214

On Sat, 21 Dec 2013 00:59:57 -0000, dg1261 <dgREMOVE-THIS1261@cs.com>  
wrote:

> "Stanley Daniel de Liver" <admin@127.0.0.1> wrote in
> news:op.w8d19jz0o4et73@dell3100:
>
>> On Fri, 20 Dec 2013 07:16:43 -0000, Rod Pemberton wrote:
>>
>>> Some OSes won't boot if the boot code isn't in the lower tracks of
>>> the disk. IIRC, DOS is one of those.
>>
>> yes, IO.SYS needs to be in the 1st 2G. I think DOS requires a C drive,
>> but I may be wrong. (It doesn't have to be the 1st partition, but its
>> probably best that way)
>>
>
> Stanley's right.  DOS doesn't need to be the first partition, but because
> it uses CHS addressing there are restrictions on where it can be placed
> on the disk, so it's best to keep it close to the front.
>
> Remember, there is no such thing as a "C" drive until some OS boots.
> When DOS boots it by design will designate "C" to be the active partition
> on the first hard disk.  So DOS doesn't have to be the first partition on
> the disk, it just needs to be the active one.  That's one of the jobs of
> boot managers--they change, on the fly, which partition is active in the
> partition table.
>
> Regardless of whether it's first or not, if you have multiple primary FAT
> partitions you need to be careful.  There was a bug in DOS that could
> cause data corruption if multiple primary partitions were visible on the
> same disk.  It wasn't a problem if other partitions were logical (i.e.,
> non-primary), weren't visible (i.e., not FAT), or were on secondary hard
> disks, it was only if they were primaries and on the same disk.
>
> If you don't need direct access to hardware ports on the computer,
> another alternative to multibooting is virtualization (VirtualPC,
> VirtualBox, VMWare, et al).

You'll need sufficient RAM (>2G, IMO) for this to be feasible.

  My multiboot system has one DOS partition
> for DOS tasks that do need direct hardware access, but the rest of my DOS
> "systems" are virtual machines.  FWIW, I also run Win98 and Win2000 in
> VMs.  It wouldn't be possible to multiboot them because my hardware is
> too modern to have 98/2000 drivers, but VMs typically emulate older
> hardware so they work fine there.  (See www.goodells.net/virtualpc for
> more.)
>
> Dan
>


-- 
It's a money /life balance.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1220

Rod Pemberton <dont_use_email@xnohavenotit.cnm> wrote:
>Modern BIOSes which support the BIOS Boot Spec. (BBS) will
>let you *boot* a USB device.  It's emulated as an IDE device
>by the BIOS. 

It's emulated as a BIOS hard drive (or maybe floppy drive), the BIOS
doesn't emulate the lower level ST-506/IDE hardware interface.  It just
provides the standard interface-agnostic BIOS software interface.

>Also, Windows 98/SE will *not* boot from a USB device.  Win98/SE resets
>the USB controllers during startup of Windows which causes a boot failure,
>i.e., no external USB install.

I've gotten Windows 98 to boot from USB by disabling the Windows USB
drivers, but this is not something you want to do if you can avoid it.

>My recommendation if you want multiple systems on the same computer
>is to install them on separate internal hard drives (or SSDs), then use
>the BBS boot menu (usually F11 or somesuch...), to select a different
>boot device at startup.  I would avoid USB, except to use it as a
>replacement for a DOS floppy.

Booting from floppy is what I do when I want to boot an PC using bare
metal MS-DOS.  All my PCs have floppy drives, but I've used USB floppy
drives for this as well.

					Ross Ridge

-- 
 l/  //	  Ross Ridge -- The Great HTMU
[oo][oo]  rridge@csclub.uwaterloo.ca
-()-/()/  http://www.csclub.uwaterloo.ca/~rridge/ 
 db  //	  

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1197

Patrick Rockwell <prockwell@thegrid.net> wrote in
news:bb6443dc-adbc-4fa6-8b9f-f8855b916e9a@googlegroups.com: 

Wow, I gave up on Vcom System Commander more than 10 years ago!  (But I 
really liked it before then! <g>)

In the past 10 years I've tested a lot of boot managers but have whittled 
my recommendations down to just two: Terabyte Unlimited's "Boot It Bare 
Metal" (aka, BIBM) and XOSL.  These are the only two I ever bother 
recommending anymore.

BIBM is simply the best boot manager I've ever come across, and comes 
with a built-in partition manager and cloning/imaging tool--three tools 
in one.  It's $40 shareware and a relative bargain for three first-rate 
utilities.  It's got a fully functional free trial period, so you can try 
it out (really, not just a few limited functions) before deciding if you 
want to pay for it.

XOSL is the best free boot manager, so is what I recommend to people for 
whom $40 is still too much.  Its GUI is much easier to configure and use 
than grub or lilo.  It still multiboots most OSs--even Win8--just fine, 
even though development ceased 10 years ago.  (A MBR is still a MBR, 
after all, so it hasn't really needed any changes.)

If you're building a multiboot system you may find some helpful insights 
from my webpage at www.goodells.net/multiboot.  The tools have changed 
over the years, but I still use the same basic methodology when building 
multiboot systems today.

Note all of the above considers MBR disks only.  I haven't setup nor 
explored multibooting GPT disks.

Dan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1198

I'm curious: I have a Win98 system and at one time was playing with the notion of developing a game OS for fun.  Nothing came from that, but if I ever develop it, it would be mostly for the 386/486 in V86 mode and probably use no more than 32MB hard drive space and run games from floppy or other removable media.  Do the aforementioned boot managers support resizing a partition?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1200

On Thursday, https://ask.fedoraproject.org/question/10051/can-i-resize-a-partition-to-give-more-space-to/ December 19, 2013 8:10:02 AM UTC-8, Harry Potter wrote:
> I'm curious: I have a Win98 system and at one time was playing with the notion of developing a game OS for fun.  Nothing came from that, but if I ever develop it, it would be mostly for the 386/486 in V86 mode and probably use no more than 32MB hard drive space and run games from floppy or other removable media.  Do the aforementioned boot managers support resizing a partition?

I think grub does. Check out this URL.

 https://ask.fedoraproject.org/question/10051/can-i-resize-a-partition-to-give-more-space-to/ 

I used grub resize partition as Google search terms.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1203

Harry Potter <rose.joseph12@yahoo.com> wrote in news:fdc28ccd-7e2d-403e-
98ac-38fddde4e536@googlegroups.com:

> Do the aforementioned boot managers support resizing a partition?
> 

Technically speaking, resizing a partition is a completely different 
function from the function of a boot manager.  The job of a boot manager 
is to manage or select which partition the computer will boot.  Resizing 
partitions is the job of a partition manager, whose functions include 
adding, deleting, moving, and/or resizing partitions.  The job of a 
partition imager is to backup, restore, or clone/copy partitions.

Those are three separate types of tools, but there is often some overlap 
between their features.  Most partition managers, for example, can also 
clone/copy a partition because the methodology is not that different from 
moving a partition.

That said, Terabyte "Boot-It Bare Metal" can function as both a boot 
manager (if you install that part of it) and a partition manager.  It 
also comes with an Imager, though that's really a separate app.

XOSL is a boot manager only.  It is not a partition manager.

There are plenty of free partition managers around, as well as lots of 
free partition imagers, so it really shouldn't be an issue whether or not 
they are included with the boot manager.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1204

On Fri, 20 Dec 2013 01:22:53 -0500, dg1261 <dgREMOVE-THIS1261@cs.com>  
wrote:

> Harry Potter <rose.joseph12@yahoo.com> wrote in news:fdc28ccd-7e2d-403e-
> 98ac-38fddde4e536@googlegroups.com:
>
>> Do the aforementioned boot managers support resizing a partition?
>>
>
> Technically speaking, resizing a partition is a completely different
> function from the function of a boot manager.  The job of a boot manager
> is to manage or select which partition the computer will boot.  Resizing
> partitions is the job of a partition manager, whose functions include
> adding, deleting, moving, and/or resizing partitions.  The job of a
> partition imager is to backup, restore, or clone/copy partitions.
>

I've only resized a partition once.  That was a long time ago.  I resized
it to a *smaller* size.  AFAIK, the partition manager didn't relocate files
that were in the space for the new partition.  Fortunately, Windows 98/SE's
defrag command re-allocates from higher to lower tracks.  Unfortunately,
for DOS, you'd probably need some special tool to ensure files are  
allocated
on lower tracks.  If you're resizing to a larger size, then simply  
rewriting
larger partition size in the correct partition record of the master boot
sector should work.  You could use fdisk or cfdisk in Linux to do that
(booted from another device, of course).


Rod Pemberton

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1206

On Fri, 20 Dec 2013 07:16:03 -0000, Rod Pemberton  
<dont_use_email@xnohavenotit.cnm> wrote:

> On Fri, 20 Dec 2013 01:22:53 -0500, dg1261 <dgREMOVE-THIS1261@cs.com>  
> wrote:
>
>> Harry Potter <rose.joseph12@yahoo.com> wrote in news:fdc28ccd-7e2d-403e-
>> 98ac-38fddde4e536@googlegroups.com:
>>
>>> Do the aforementioned boot managers support resizing a partition?
>>>
>>
>> Technically speaking, resizing a partition is a completely different
>> function from the function of a boot manager.  The job of a boot manager
>> is to manage or select which partition the computer will boot.  Resizing
>> partitions is the job of a partition manager, whose functions include
>> adding, deleting, moving, and/or resizing partitions.  The job of a
>> partition imager is to backup, restore, or clone/copy partitions.
>>
>
> I've only resized a partition once.  That was a long time ago.  I resized
> it to a *smaller* size.  AFAIK, the partition manager didn't relocate  
> files
> that were in the space for the new partition.  Fortunately, Windows  
> 98/SE's
> defrag command re-allocates from higher to lower tracks.  Unfortunately,
> for DOS, you'd probably need some special tool to ensure files are  
> allocated
> on lower tracks.  If you're resizing to a larger size, then simply  
> rewriting
> larger partition size in the correct partition record of the master boot
> sector should work.  You could use fdisk or cfdisk in Linux to do that
> (booted from another device, of course).

Unless you go over a size boundary, and need an expanded FAT entry.

>
> Rod Pemberton


-- 
It's a money /life balance.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1208

"Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnohavenotit.cnm> wrote in
news:op.w8dqg1zk5zc71u@localhost: 

> I've only resized a partition once.  That was a long time ago.  I
> resized it to a *smaller* size.  AFAIK, the partition manager didn't
> relocate files that were in the space for the new partition. 

Yes, that's one way of doing it.  The "dumber" (or "safer", depending on 
your point of view) utilities will only shrink down to the last used 
cluster, regardless of how much free space there may be in front of that 
cluster.  "Smarter" utilities will move clusters if they're in the way of 
the resize operation--in effect, defragging the file the moved cluster 
belongs to.


> Fortunately, Windows 98/SE's defrag command re-allocates from higher
> to lower tracks.  Unfortunately, for DOS, you'd probably need some
> special tool to ensure files are allocated on lower tracks.  

DOS 6 also had a Defrag command.  I think it had an "Optimize" option 
that would additionally move everything to the front of the partition.  
Before that, there were third-party tools to do the same thing, such as 
PC Tools "Compress" and Norton Utilities "Speedisk", IIRC.


> If you're resizing to a larger size, then simply rewriting
> larger partition size in the correct partition record of the master
> boot sector should work.

There's more to it than that.  The boot parameter block (BPB) in the 
partition's boot sector has to be adjusted, and the FATs would need to be 
expanded so they have room to record the extra clusters.  Expanding the 
FATs might also entail moving data clusters at the front to make way for 
the larger FATs.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1210

On Fri, 20 Dec 2013 19:56:53 -0500, dg1261 <dgREMOVE-THIS1261@cs.com>  
wrote:
> "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnohavenotit.cnm> wrote in
> news:op.w8dqg1zk5zc71u@localhost:

>> If you're resizing to a larger size, then simply rewriting
>> larger partition size in the correct partition record of the master
>> boot sector should work.
>
> There's more to it than that.  The boot parameter block (BPB)

That's a common mistake, it's:

  BIOS Parameter Block

> The boot parameter block (BPB) in the partition's boot sector has
> to be adjusted, and the FATs would need to be expanded so they have
> room to record the extra clusters.

... "has" to be adjusted or "may need" to be adjusted?

I would think both the BPB and FAT sizes would be valid for a
certain range of partition sizes.  So, if the change is outside
that range, above or below, then they'd have to be adjusted.
If within, they shouldn't.  Assuming they're already set to the
maximums, it's even more likely they shouldn't need adjustment.

 From the RBIL BPB and extended BPB, I only see two fields that
would appear to need adjustment sometimes: "sectors per cluster"
and "sectors per FAT".


Rod Pemberton

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.os.msdos.programmer

csiph-web